Re: Fortran 9x: time for a decision

[Eric Siegerman]

Not that I ever expect to use the Fortan stuff, but...

On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 12:28:05PM -0500, Steven G. Johnson wrote:
> AC_PROG_FXX([year], [search-list]), where year is YY or YYYY with YY < 54
> interpreted as 20YY

That "YY < some_magic_value interpreted as 20YY" was an
acceptable kludge for Y2K-proofing legacy systems.  But what
reason is there for incorporating two-digit dates into new
designs, now that we've seen the grief that can cause?

I know, I know.  "Surely nobody'll still be using Autoconf in 52
years."  That's what they said the last time...

Just require a four-digit date and be done with it.


>     -- FXX seems a clear name for a Fortran compiler from an arbitrary
> year.
>     -- FXX also draws a parallel with C++ (CXX).  

True.  But what if someone comes up with a Fortran++?

> [FXX] works as a prefix for FLAGS, etcetera, unlike FC which doesn't
> (FCFLAGS would break the analogy with CC/CFLAGS).

Using whole names whenever possible has the advantage that it
doesn't take up more room in the single-character-prefix
namespace.  Indeed, the manual for GNU make recommends:

> Append `FLAGS' to the program-name variable name to get the
> options variable name--for example, `BISONFLAGS'.

But that doesn't offer any guidance as to what the program-name
variable itself should be called.  The manual goes on:

> (The names `CFLAGS' for the C compiler, `YFLAGS' for yacc, and
> `LFLAGS' for lex, are exceptions to this rule, but we keep them
> because they are standard.)

So CC/CFLAGS is perhaps not the most important pattern to stay
compatible with.

(To be honest, I don't really feel that strongly about FXX vs.
FC; really, my points are minor quibbles.  That YY thing, though
-- yikes!)

--

|  | /\
|-_|/  >   Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.        address@hidden
|  |  /
The acronym for "the powers that be" differs by only one letter
from that for "the pointy-haired boss".